We’re ecstatic to have gotten this attention. Now we hope to follow through. If you have an account here, you can already create a scholarly profile, publish your own blog, and build a research network. We’re taking proposals for projects that our network members want to develop under our auspices, and we’re also looking for submissions for MediaCommons Press. Get involved with us here, and help us build the future of scholarly publishing.

Thanks so much for your input. The point, of course, is that we’re in the process of developing those standards. Simply sitting back and saying “we don’t know how to do/judge this yet” isn’t sufficient. These experiments are precisely tests in the direction of creating a more fruitful, sustainable peer-to-peer review system.

Best of luck. The testing is welcome. Just don’t declare victory till sustainability, scalability and quality have been demonstrated. The trouble is that just about everything new seems to work for a while!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Suggest looking at the outcome of other, similar open review experiments that have been tried in the past 10 years (there have been quite a few).

Gee, thanks for the recommendations. In fact, I’ve written a book about this issue — Planned Obsolescence — so I’m quite familiar with those experiments. I did my homework. And if you look at my bibliography, you’ll even see that I’ve read your work besides. Perhaps you might do me the courtesy of reading some of mine.